Today the Guardian published a story claiming that an unnamed Source saw Paul Manafort, Trump’s 2016 Campaign Chairman, attend the Ecuadorian Embassy, where he allegedly met with Julian Assange.

If true, such a meeting would definitively link Julian Assange, to collusion with Russia, to influence the outcome of the U.S. election in favour of Donald Trump. No small thing.

I’ve seen four day old Gas Station Sushi that smelled better than this and I wouldn’t swallow that either.

Wikileaks has flatly denied this, betting Assange’s prematurely-silver, stress-ridden head on the fact that it’s garbage.

In the interests of fairness, the Source’s alleged claim should not be assumed to be an out-right, bald-faced lie, of the BBC-type routinely shilled by The Guardian, about chemical attacks by the Syrian government.

Given the monumental ramifications of this claim, it should be considered as possibly having a potential kernel of truth, at least until the following questions have been answered:

How was Manafort identified?

What it a police-investigation style identification process involving a photo I.D. line-up, or similar?

Such a process involves the witness being asked to examine a series of photographs of people of similar appearance, with similar photo backgrounds, including a picture of Manafort. Most people, including those of us without Prosopagnosia, wouldn’t recognise him in the street, if we tripped over him, despite the press coverage.

Did The Guardian’s reporters even go as far as to plonk a picture of Manafort on the desk, in front of the witness and ask, “Was it this guy?” This would be witness recollection and I.D. pollution at it’s most basic. I’d bet my own head, complete with platter, that they didn’t even do this.

Did this alleged Source provide time and date of the alleged Embassy visit?

Has The Guardian perused Embassy Visitor Records which would contain an entry pertaining to Manafort’s visit? Is this entry signed by Manafort?

If not, The Guardian needs to request the records, for the alleged date and time of the visit, to verify this claim. Anything less would be the height of sloppy, politically-invested journalism.

No doubt they’ll protect this alleged Source’s identity, as they should. One wonders if it’s the same ‘well-placed source’ who provided the fabulous ‘Assange’s fallen book-case’ expose, wherein it was claimed that Assange must have pulled it onto the floor in a Hulk-like fit of Herculean rage, rather than that it just fell down because it was cheap, contained too many books and wasn’t attached to the wall.

Maybe it was the same critical, well-placed insider who provided the damning claim that Assange was seen to use his computer in the bathroom. I’d like to bet it’s the same guy, probably a Security Guard, who probably still works there and who is still in touch with The Guardian.

Luke Harding’s Guardian crew obviously went on their Ecuadorian junket to attempt to verify the information. It may well be the case that they received no additional information to back-up the claim but simply improved their tans, came home empty-handed and decided to run the story anyway.

They probably think the statement that they went to Ecuador, whether they received verification or not, would add credence to the story. For all we know, they could have gone there, attempted to speak to officials and been told to bugger off. The photo of the erstwhile reporters linking arms in a bulwark of intrepid buddy-reporter solidarity, certainly screams international ‘scoop’ even if the trip wasn’t productive. I guess that’s why it was published.

Does Manafort’s Passport, or any other information, place him in London at the relevant time and date? Obviously someone in the F.B.I., or the Guardian, needs to check this. I’m of the belief that this line of enquiry will sink like a stone.

Where is video evidence of Manafort walking in or out of the airport in the UK?

Where is the Embassy security video depicting Manafort’s visit? If it exists, why hasn’t the Government of Ecuador coughed it up, given their keenness to see the back of Julian Assange? Given that the press corp have cameras trained on the front of the Embassy practically 24/7, someone must have noticed Manafort walking in or out or be able to search their video records. What WERE they doing not to notice such a monumental event? They seem to notice Pamela Anderson’s every visit and manage to take photographs and plague her with salacious inquiry every single time.

U.K. Intelligence no doubt have an Observation Post set up recording every movement, as apparently do the BBC. We have read the stories about neighbours being asked to provide digs for this purpose. Surely the media will be able to cough up something, for the F.B.I. Russia investigation, of such monumental import. I’d like to bet no such video or photos will ever be added into evidence because no obs of Manafort at the Embassy ever existed.

Who’s behind this idiocy?

The Democrats are still trying to delude people that the Red Menace installed Trump despite the fact that roughly 50 percent of the American people voted for those clowns, again, in the mid-terms. The ‘Blue Wave’ was but a dribble which demonstrated that half of America got the government it wanted and deserved.

The new Ecuadorian government are still trying to find a way to prise Julian Assange out of the embassy because they lack the guts to kick him out for fear of legal censure.

You’d think this tasty info would have been used by the Democrats or the Ecuadorian Government before now. Odd.

Now The Guardian step up to do their bit to peddle dystopian-quality misinformation. This is a step down into the abyss, even for Luke Harding, who has form for damaging Assange just to get words into print.

Why wasn’t Harding kicked to the kerb after his last round of ill-informed, anti-Assange vindictive smear-jobs?

It’s not enough to just write this mess up as another addition to the echo chamber of lies and mendacity that is the latter-day mass media. This is more important than just another attempt to squeeze a story out of the Assange situation.

The Guardian’s actions reminds me of the apocryphal story about Hollywood Director, John Houston. When he stated that he planned to kill an elephant, a comment was made to him that it was a ‘crime’. Houston allegedly stated that the act was much bigger than that – “It’s a sin.”

We’re in an environment wherein media lies are being used to guide the political direction of a nuclear power with bases all over the world. We’re talking about overt media fabrications being inflicted daily, on an under-educated and unsophisticated U.S. public, for the purpose of provoking war between the U.S. and Russia, or at least to arm-wrestle control over the Middle East, with little care about the mass losses of civilian lives or the dangers of escalation destroying the planet and us with it.

Like John Houston when he shot that elephant, The Guardian should be ashamed of itself.

Advertisements

Share this:

The recently exposed Twitter Shadow-banning fiasco is one of the most recent and obvious manifestations of Twitter’s slump towards irrelevance. The blatant and obviously political, refusal to verify the account of Julian Assange has been another blatant example.

Exactly who is making those farcical decisions at Twitter? Is it Jack Dorsey? Has he hired some spineless advisors who are controlling the staff making these ill-conceived, random decisions to ban, limit and censor tweeps? Is it possible that he’s so scared to death of being hassled by the U.S. government and others, that he is bending over at the first sign of pressure? What kind of pressure is this? Is it coming from the government or his wealthy peer group? Is it some misguided attempt to broaden his user base by appearing family-friendly? Has someone with serious bucks threatened him with legal action? Why, in Dog’s name, would he think that banning free-speakers would lead to more users or advertisers? Newsflash, Jack, without users, you don’t get advertisers. If you betray your raison d’etre, the very thing that made your platform special, you lose your users.

I suggest that Jack gets this situation under control while he’s still got a business left. I see a lot of people moving on, in the near future – and not merely those of us who have been so charmingly described, by your bizarrely-out-of-touch staff member, as ‘shitty people’.

I am 100% certain my account is being censored. It has become apparent that my account is being kept below 1,100 followers. For at least the last year and a half, my follower count drops to just under the 1,100 mark rapidly, as soon as it reaches around 1,110. This has happened with monotonous regularity, for at least a year and a half, after a steady climb to that follower count. I believe that this is evidence that some shameful algorithm kicks in to stop my account developing and my views being heard. I am certain I am not the only one being subjected to this kind of mechanical muzzling. I’m not paranoid enough to think I’m that note-worthy so there would be millions of other people having the same hand-brake applied to their public personas.

I am proudly outspoken in relation to Syria and the abuses of the Palestinian people by the apartheid state of Israel and I expose sock-puppet accounts which are being run solely to propagandise. I believe that this is the reason my account is being censored.

I think it is quite possible that staff at Twitter are actively furthering the apartheid, Hasbara aims of the Israeli government and are actively assisting them in silencing the #BDS movement along with a lot of other view-points the US government considers troublesome. I have had temporary limitations placed on my principal account and my back-up account, on at least two occasions, as a result of challenging extremely obvious Israeli sock-puppet accounts, the kind that tweet all day and all night, in a manner that suggests that they are either being run by multiple persons, that they’re bots, or that the person controlling them has a serious Adderall addiction. Obviously the latter is the least likely option, though it would explain some of the quality of the intellectual content.

Do yourself a favour, Jack. Kick this one to the kerb. (Image courtesy of RT)

It’s disgusting that the public are being defrauded in this way. We came to Twitter, trusting the platform and believing that our views would be treated equally. Instead the Thought Police in the Twitter office consign our views down the ‘memory hole’ into oblivion as if they’re worthless. This filthy business of secret-sanitisation is not only a gross insult to Twitter’s clients, i.e. us. It’s a major infringement against anyone’s idea of what constitutes free speech.

It’s time for people to vote with their feet and demonstrate to @Jack that Twitter is not as indispensable as he likes to think it is. Those of us who actually have something meaningful to say came to Twitter for all the reasons it was NOT like Facebook, i.e. because it was a place where one could have a boots-and-all discussion, without feeling like we were in a nanny-state dominated by kitty-pics at a teetotaler’s convention. It was a place where you could deal with the serious issues and get honest responses to honest statements, whether you wanted to read them or not. What a great thing that was while it lasted. Those who wanted to travel in the slow-lane stayed on Facebook.

In Jack’s desperation to protect his investment he has lost sight of the reason for Twitter’s popularity. Without credibility as a free speech platform, Twitter is nought but advertising bots and pictures of Kim Kardashian’s bum.

Wake up, Twitter! Wake up, Jack. Sack those half-wits you’ve invested with censoring-powers they have clearly demonstrated they are ill-equipped to handle, for reasons of ignorance (political and moral), immaturity or ego.

Is this happening because you’ve allowed your building to get infested with Israeli Hasbara or U.S. government moles? Is it a pay issue? Are your inmates a bunch of monkeys because you are only willing to pay peanuts?

Twitter has ‘Block’ and ‘Mute’ options. You also have options to limit ‘sensitive’ content (oh God). Exactly how ridiculous do you want to get about this?

I contend that you only have a short window of opportunity in which to fix this before Twitter is scraped into the internet garbage-bin. Technology moves quickly, as we know, so it’s likely there will be no return. All the nannies and polite, vanilla-thinkers won’t save you from that.

Jack, stop censoring and limiting exactly the type of out-spoken, opinionated people who made Twitter interesting in the first place.

On 3 April 2013, the University of Adelaide are hosting an event entitled “The Assange Affair: freedom of speech and freedom of information, a global perspective”.

The key-note speaker, for the event, is Justice Stefan Lindskog, Chairman of the Supreme Court of Sweden, Sweden’s highest court of appeal.

The University Website informs us:

“As one of Sweden’s most eminent jurists he is uniquely able to provide an authoritative view of the Assange affair”.

The message here is clearly, what he says goes, in relation to the “Assange affair”, including the extradition.

The event is being sponsored by the Swedish Embassy and Lipman Karas, a legal practice situated in London, Hong Kong and Australia but, coincidentally, not in Sweden.

The subject of the keynote address clearly places the Assange extradition and the Swedish allegations, as the main subject of the lecture.

While he hasn’t been charged, he is clearly the subject of a current Swedish investigation and some form of judicial proceedings, in the form of the European Arrest Warrant. Stefan Lindskog, being the ‘Chairman of the Supreme Court of Sweden; is currently highly-placed in the Swedish Judiciary. To say that his coming here, to publically discuss the legal issues in relation to Julian Assange’s matter, is highly inappropriate, is a gross understatement.

What is an Australian University doing allowing Sweden’s “most eminent jurist” to come and publically try Julian Assange on Australian soil. Obviously the fee paid by the Swedish Government must have been good for the University to allow this.

The Assange “affair” as they are calling it, has high-lighted, for the rest of the world, the unhealthy connection between the Swedish police, media and their politicians. The Swedish Prosecutors rapidly leaked details to the media, about the sexual molestation allegations against Julian Assange, on at least two occasions. In fact, the Swedish press knew about the allegations before he did.

The corruption and inadequacies exhibited by the Swedish Police and Prosecutors, are not surprising, given that the Swedish Police have no official oversight body.

It shouldn’t be surprising, therefore, that the Swedish judiciary should fail to care about the inappropriateness of Lindskog’s lecture in Australia. One should expect, however, that the Swedish Judiciary would be aware of the need to at least appear to be striving towards even-handedness. Clearly the Swedes just make it up as they go along. If it’s politically expedient, apparently it’s acceptable. Their ways are not our ways. What’s the Swedish for the term ‘Conflict of Interest’?

Lipman Karas, lawyers, is the other proud sponsor of the event. Their website boasts of several previous high-level, Australian Government contracts as follows:

They were retained by the Australian Government in relation to the Royal Commission into the HIH collapse;

They were retained to investigate and report in relation to the enquiry into the South Australian Jockey Club; and

They were retained by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) in relation to the investigation into the Crown Casino.

It is interesting that this event was organised immediately after the departure, from Australia, of Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt and after his meeting with decidedly anti-Assange, pro-U.S. Australian Foreign Minister Bob Carr. No doubt contacts were established and arrangements made whilst Bildt was still in Australia.

Apparently the Judge intends to discuss Human Rights and Freedom of Speech. Surely there are far more appropriate people to lecture on these issues than a single Swedish jurist, however ’eminent’ this person is considered in Sweden. What is he doing going into these matters, in the context of the Assange matter, when supposedly the sex allegations against Assange are unrelated to the U.S. investigation.

Obviously that will be the part where the Judge repeats claims that the Swedes don’t extradite people where there is potential for Human Rights abuses, a claim which we know to be false. Apparently if it’s said by someone sufficiently ’eminent’, Assange will have to come out of the Embassy.

A better option is for Sweden to withdraw their farcical arrest warrant – then he’ll come out. That way they can save the money they’ll spend on lecture junkets and salvage what’s left of Sweden’s legal reputation at the same time.

This event is yet another example of the Swedish Government’s Judicial-Legal circus and the Australian Government’s complicity in it.

During the program, Domscheit-Berg stated a belief in the importance of whistle-blowers. This lofty attitude flies in the face of his actions in sabotaging WikiLeaks and betraying whistle-blowers, by stealing leaked documents and the encrypted submission system from the organisation.

Despite these actions and his continuous public slander of WikiLeaks, he still had the hypocrisy and audacity to refer to the organisation as “we” a number of times, during the program, presumably in continuance of his usual attempts to bath in the reflected glory generated by the achievements and continued trials endured by Julian Assange and Brad Manning. Revealingly, though, he smirked when Assange’s current Embassy incarceration was mentioned.

In case anyone should be in doubt of the importance of Domscheit-Berg in the achievements of Assange and Manning, he indicated he had met Manning and described his impression of Manning’s demeanor and motives in leaking material to WikiLeaks. By his statements, whether or not they are factual, he has publically placed himself in the position of middle-man for WikiLeaks, in relation to the Manning leaks. Given the current situation, these statements are at best, ill-advised and at worst, an incredible act of self-aggrandising stupidity. Domscheit-Berg does not present as highly intelligent but can he really be so clueless as to not realise the implications of his statements?

In response to questions as to whether he thought he would be called as a witness, in relation to the investigation, he claimed not to know. This is completely bizarre in the context of his Manning remarks, particularly when the F.B.I. are going to such lengths as to subpoena Twitter account records. Surely, given the information Domscheit-Berg provided, the pertinent question would be not, “Do you expect to be called as a witness?” but “Do you expect to be charged with Conspiracy to Commit Espionage?” – or whatever charges the U.S. Grand Jury has prepared for Julian Assange.

It is clear that he has spoken to the F.B.I. and was deemed ‘helpful’ so clearly he has already passed on information, pertaining to his involvement, to them. He would definitely have been asked to make an official statement – ergo he is an F.B.I. Informant. His lack of reticence in providing information, directly related to the investigation, on television demonstrates that the F.B.I. already has his version of events.

Bradley Manning: One of the people Domscheit-Berg is disregarding in his quest for public attention

Based on the information he has provided in this program he will definitely be subpoenaed as a witness against Julian Assange and Brad Manning. One can only assume that either he is lying about knowing this, or the F.B.I. are unwilling to directly confirm this fact to him. This may be because the effect would be to openly confirm that Assange is to be arrested, in relation to WikiLeaks involvement in the Manning leaks, and they are still trying to maintain a pretence that they may not proceed against him.

Obviously, if Assange is to be arrested, then so is Domscheit-Berg, as he appears to be confessing to being the middle-man in what they would define as a ‘Conspiracy’. In fact, his confirmation makes him more culpable than Assange as he cannot deny knowledge. The only thing that would protect Domscheit-Berg from being charged is his ‘co-operation’ in the form of the provision of a statement against Assange and Manning. Clearly, his admissions on this program, are an admission, by implication, of this co-operation with the F.B.I.

The interviewer described Domscheit-Berg as ‘Founder’ of OpenLeaks. In a previous post I stated that I believed it was highly likely that ‘OpenLeaks’ was being maintained, as a front organisation, for the F.B.I. I also stated that I believed it was functioning as a ‘honey-pot’ to gather intelligence about would-be leakers, to prevent actual leaks occurring which could be damaging to the U.S. Government. I also voiced the fact that the F.B.I. were in a conundrum, as OpenLeaks could not be perceived to leak anything without raising the question as to why Domscheit-Berg was not being criminally charged. I suggested that this caused difficulties in maintaining the ruse that OpenLeaks was a legitimate leak organisation.

To this date, Openleaks still does not appear to be providing any actual constructive service to whistle-blowers. For months, Domscheit-Berg’s leaking activities consisted of public requests for persons to come forward to help them develop systems so they could commence functioning.

Today the OpenLeaks web-site contains information about their non-functioning email system and a ‘stream of consciousness’ diatribe, from Domscheit-Berg, about why leaking is difficult. He makes it clear that his organisation is steering clear of actual leaking but will provide information to others about how to go about it. A reasonable conclusion, from reading the information on the web-site, as provided by Domscheit-Berg’s fairly ordinary intellect, is that OpenLeaks has no such information to provide.

If OpenLeaks is being maintained as an F.B.I. ‘honey-pot’, Domschiet-Berg’s operational activity of attracting contact from potential leaders of leaking organisations, is the next best thing to receiving information from actual leakers. This would also solve the problem of maintaining Domscheit-Berg’s shaky cover story and the cover of OpenLeaks. The F.B.I. would be able to receive information they could use to identify the next generation of potential Julian Assange’s, information with great potential valuable to more than one sector of the U.S. Government.

Based upon Domscheit-Berg’s performance to date, as recently confirmed by his public comments in the above panel-interview video, there is no doubt that he is the LAST person who anyone should contact should they wish to commence leaking activities. No doubt if he receives any information about persons interested in whistle-blowing activities, he would be happy to oblige the F.B.I. by providing it to them, particularly if he could enhance his public-image whilst by doing so. One would hope that any hapless, well-meaning person would steer well clear of Domscheit-Berg and OpenLeaks.

There’s not too much that needs to be said about this unholy alliance – The Obama Government’s complete subservience to Israel is world-renowed.

One current example of Israel’s ‘coming out’, as the ruler of the U.S. Government, is the current furore over a comment made by Obama’s nominee for Secretary of Defence, Chuck Hagel. He had the audacity to suggest that he was a U.S. Senator and not a Jewish Senator. In response, forty Senators, who obviously consider themselves servants of Israel, blocked Hagel’s nomination, with a filibuster, in disgust at this misrepresentation of their own allegiances.

The American public can be in no doubt about which country’s needs are to be prioritised in the U.S.A. The question remains as to what the American people intend to do about it. Get misty-eyed about their stylish President, hand over their tax dollars for the war on Iran and Israeli military assistance and continue to fiddle whilst Democracy burns, I suppose. Oh and I suppose they’ll also be buying lots of body bags for the American sons and daughters who will die for the state of Israel in their next unholy war.

The Oxford Union Speech debacle

It seems it took an epic battle for Assange to be able to speak at Oxford University. All kinds of forces appear to have been aligned against him, including misguided feminists and the usual array of selfish attention-seekers attempting to use conflict with Assange as a ticket to personal fame.

The day before Assange’s speech, former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., John Bolton, was invited to address the Union. The choice of Bolton to speak the day before Assange, was a telling one. WikiLeaks had already indicated they were in possession of the script for “The Fifth Estate” (previously known as “The Man who sold the World”). It would have been clear that Assange was going to challenge the film’s misinformation about Iran’s imaginary nuclear program, as well as defend against the film’s defamatory implication that WikiLeaks was somehow associated with said program.

John Bolton is a Conservative Republican, who is involved with the “Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs”. After the U.N. General Assembly voted to upgrade the Observer status of the Palestinian delegation, in November 2012, Bolton blamed Obama for even allowing the vote to take place. He stated that the U.S. should have threatened to withhold U.N. membership dues if the vote proceeded. Bolton stated, “Palestine is not a state. That’s a fact. And when the U.N. engages in this kind of activity, it just shows a real lack of administration commitment to stop it from happening.” That’s right, John, how dareanyone, apart from the U.S. Government, have a say in anything that happens in the rest of the world.

Predictably, in his speech, Bolton accused Iran of every dirty deed imaginable, including being the “central banker of terrorism” – a title long ago earned by the United States and their master, Israel, the murderers of Palestinian children and deployers of assassination brigades.

Bolton’s blatantly anti-Iranian, war-flame fanning propaganda speech at Oxford, was accompanied by recorded applause, including whoops more appropriate to an Oscar acceptance speech. The applause abruptly and unnaturally ceases so as not to interfere with the audibility of Bolton’s stories about the evil Iranian empire. The student’s hostile questions were also edited out. The only thing missing, to complete the picture, was a couple of jokes with some canned-laughter. Here is a link to Craig Murray’s blog on the whole Oxford-Bolton propaganda mind-job:

In his subsequent address to Oxford, Julian Assange informed the audience about the Dreamworks film’s anti-Iranian misinformation and insidious implications re: WikiLeaks, pointing out specific sections of the script. He also spoke further about media-manipulation by corporate and government interests. Here is link to a section of Assange’s address, where he discusses these issues:

The University’s Board of Trustees attempted to block the transmission of Assange’s address, on “legal” grounds. The edited version of the Assange speech, with U.S. friendly back-drop and dodgy manipulated sound was eventually released – sans fake canned applause. Craig Murray indicates that he, himself, was part of a battle to allow even this edited transmission to occur. Oxford University had deleted Assange’s preferred back-drop, which depicted the ‘Collateral Murder’ video, providing some dodgy reason pertaining to copyright. Who raised said issue of legal copyright? Presumably Oxford must have been in contact with someone from the U.S. Government, in relation to this issue and had made a dirty deal to accommodate them.

Presumably this is also what happened in relation to arrangements for John Bolton to speak at the University. A pertinent question might be “What the hell was Bolton doing there in the first place?” If it was to add counter-balance to the discourse, that should be done with speakers who are at least presenting a view of the true facts. Clearly Bolton was there for the purpose of manipulating the fragile, egg-shell minds of the students of Oxford to make them into good little Iran-hating drones for the United States of Israel. The effect was also a preemptive strike on Assange, who would have been expected to support the truth of the Iran Nuclear Program and counter the Dreamworks film’s propaganda.

It is difficult to understand how Oxford University could stand by and allow such a propaganda exercise to happen in a U.K. seat of learning. Is the U.S. Government now the Ministry for Propaganda at Oxford University?

I would suggest that it’s time for the students of Oxford and other British Universities, to start analysing the forces behind the information they are being force-fed through their own institutions and the media. It is time for them to start asking some pertinent questions about the sovereignty of their educational institutions and their country.

Note: I have edited out information from this blog pertaining to various anti-Assange trolling accounts and their associated pernicious web-sites. Disinterest (i.e., mine in particular), the progress of world events and the passage of time have mercifully relegated these individuals and their sponsors to the S-bend of history.

In the side-bar of this site, under the ‘Internet Issues’ category, I have provided links to a number of interesting articles, in relation to techniques including ‘astro-turfing’ and other government and commercial strategies currently being used to manipulate social media platforms, including Twitter and Facebook.

Included is information in relation to U.S. Military Intelligence, which is currently using military personnel to run many propaganda accounts on social media websites. A single personnel member can run up to fifty of these ‘sock-puppet’, i.e. multiple, accounts at the same time.

The U.S. Government and other organisations, also contract-employ marketing companies, in various locations around the world, to conduct what is often referred to as ‘persona management’. The U.S. Military and contracted marketing companies, also use multiple ‘metal gear sock-puppet’ accounts. These accounts are operated by software which provides a capacity to present vastly falsely-inflated statistics to support any view-point considered desirable, for example to present an impression that many Twitter account-holders are opposed to WikiLeaks and Julian Assange. These accounts also attempt to influence public opinion by the use of propaganda, smear, false information and polemic.

Catch-phrases and profanities are programmed into ‘metal gear sock-puppet’ software to add authenticity and create an impression of a human operator. Some are programmed to pick up on key-words such as “Israel”, “Palestine”, “Assange”, “Wikileaks”, “Trump, “Clinton” etc. The intention behind these accounts is to chip away at public opinion and/or the credibility of government detractors and activists, as well as to gather intelligence about opposition groups and individuals. Conversely they can be used to encourage support for persons or agendas.

Multiple ‘sock puppet’ accounts are currently being used to attempt to damage the credibility of WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, by spreading false information and to falsely inflate the perception of opposition.

During the lead-up to the 2016 Presidential election, it was apparent that there was an army of these accounts, attempting to bolster support for Hillary Clinton by discrediting WikiLeaks and personally, Assange, who was perceived as damaging to her electoral prospects. Hindsight suggests these fears were not ill-founded. I have no proof that this tactic was used in the Clinton campaign but my close observations of twitter traffic over many months and years. It appeared to me that twitter was a virtual sock and bot war-zone at that time. I don’t think too many people who had been closely watching the twitter-show at that time would disagree that it was highly probable the Clinton camp and their financiers were engaged in this activity. These activities dropped off drastically, immediately after the election, even before Hillary Clinton had begun licking her wounds and brow-beating John Podesta.

Many of the anti-Wikileaks accounts are multiple “sock-puppet” accounts, being operated by the same paid employees of marketing companies, whose bills are being paid by entities such as the U.S. State Department. Some of these accounts belong to actual people, however misguided, who are operating multiple accounts for the same purpose. Many of these Twitter accounts tend to ‘follow’ each other and it is often easy to spot a single operator is using multiple accounts. With most of them, their follower support appears to be pathetically limited, even with the multiple account holders following them.

Often it is easy to spot who is operating the same accounts by which accounts pop up together to verbally harass anyone commenting in support of Assange or seen contradicting an anti-Assange troll. This reminds me of how animals puff themselves up to make themselves look bigger.

I have noticed that there are a large number of dormant trolling accounts which have been set up and appear to be waiting to be used. These accounts often retweet a few WikiLeaks and other tweets, to give an impression of authenticity and attract persons interested in WikiLeaks, so that they can then mislead them, manipulate their opinions and identify other targets through time-lines and follower lists.

My purpose in raising awareness of what appears to be, on the surface, a pathetic and somewhat innocuous activity, is to demonstrate, particularly to young people, the mendacious tactics governments and individuals indulge in to manipulate the public and blind us to the truth. This type of activity is symptomatic of a greater disease inflicting the internet community. The only process which can excise these tumours is to shine a light on them before they metastacise into more pernicious lies and worse, events.

“Pathological liars always have great faith in their own honesty. That’s what helps them lie.” – Julian Assange

I believe that Daniel Domscheit-Berg’s sins, in sabotaging and stealing from WikiLeaks, were committed for reasons of vengeance. I believe however, that there was a darker motivation, to his actions, which went far beyond malice. I believe it is probable he had been recruited as an F.B.I. informant.

The release of the ‘Afghan War Logs’ would have sent shock-waves through the U.S. Intelligence community resulting in immediate downward-pressure, from the Corridors of Power, to take action to stop WikiLeaks. Priority one, for the United States Government would have been to ensure that no further damaging leaks were possible. The best way to achieve this, and the focus of U.S. Government efforts, would have been to damage or steal the method by which information was leaked to WikiLeaks.

Come back with a Warrant – Yeah right

Domscheit-Berg did exactly that. He stole WikiLeaks’ encrypted submission system, a system authored by Julian Assange. This act put the organisation back months and necessitated WikiLeaks having to set up a temporary, rudimentary submission system, using the postal system. He also stole WikiLeaks donations in the six-digit range, as well as computer hardware.

The reason Domscheit-Berg gave, for stealing the encrypted submission system, was to use it in his own organisation, ‘Openleaks’. Openleaks has been inactive for the entirety of its’ existence, well over a year. It appears to be a non-functioning ‘front’ organisation.

It’s no secret that Domscheit-Berg has no ability to write code and could never write a submission system for himself. But why would he need one if ‘OpenLeaks’ was never going to function? I believe that Domscheit-Berg had been approached by the F.B.I. when they heard of the dissension between himself and Assange. He then agreed to work for the government in return for benefits. I believe one of his first tasks, as an Informant, was to steal the encrypted submission system and to hand it to the F.B.I. This he dutifully accomplished. I believe he was also directed to steal the stored WikiLeaks emails and to provide them to the F.B.I. What other benefit was there to be gained, from stealing emails, apart from to assist Law Enforcement? Emails relating to an argument between Domscheit-Berg and Assange were never going to hurt WikiLeaks. Other information, contained within the email system, however, could have been very useful to the Government. Remember that, at this time, the F.B.I. were trying to put together a case against Assange as well as obtain intelligence about the identities of WikiLeaks’ Sources, in order to stop them leaking information and, where possible, put together prosecutions against them. They were, and remain, keen to gather as much intelligence as possible about the organisation’s activities, plans, methodology, members, contacts, skills and sympathisers. The email system would have been considered a rich source of information.

After Domscheit-Berg had stolen the documents, containing leaked information, from WikiLeaks, the Chaos Computer Club attempted to assist with mediating their re-aquisition. The Club spent eleven fruitless months trying to do so. Andy Müller-Maguhn, of the CCC, indicated that attempts were made to make Domscheit-Berg commit to a single story but to no avail. He then claimed the documents had been destroyed. Kristinn Hrafnsson, Assange’s legal representative, stated that 3,500 documents had been stolen from WikiLeaks. None of this rich treasure-trove has subsequently been leaked by ‘Openleaks’.

This is not surprising as the F.B.I. would hardly have given Domscheit-Berg permission to leak sensitive information to the public, or media, hence no such leaked information has been released. The information was, no doubt, handed directly to the U.S. Government. ‘Openleaks’ remains open, possibly as a ‘front’ organisation, by arrangement with the F.B.I., to help maintain the original contrived ‘legend’ about Domscheit-Berg’s motives. I believe ‘Openleaks’ will never leak a single document. I believe that, if it is perceived that the ruse is failing, an announcement may be made, via the Main-stream Media, in relation to a ‘Leak’ of sensitive information by Openleaks. This release will actually be a pre-arranged press release, orchestrated to maintain the ruse whilst doing no real damage.

The F.B.I. now face an inherent problem with taking this course. The ‘Catch 22’ situation, in which they now find themselves, is that they must maintain the ruse that ‘Openleaks’ is a legitimate ‘leak’ organisation. Their difficulty is that, whilst maintaining the ruse, they cannot allow any leaks to happen. If Domscheit-Berg is given a fallacious ‘leak’ to release, to support his cover story, demands will immediately be made for him to be charged under the “Espionage Act”, with the same offences they are saving up for Julian Assange. They would then be forced to ‘out’ him as an Informant to avoid doing so. I believe this ‘Catch 22’ situation is the reason why ‘Openleaks’ continues to sit there, in a glaring and pitiful state of inaction and why it will continue to do so indefinitely. What to do?…What to do? It’s a conundrum. [Sound of fingers drumming on the desk].

The F.B.I. would have been desperate to cultivate an Informant from within WikiLeaks. Daniel Domscheit-Berg would have been just the man they were looking for – vengeful, vindictive, treacherous and with an axe to grind. Whilst using him, they probably despise him.

I would suggest the U.S. Government probably helped with the release of his book, ‘Inside WikiLeaks: My Time With Julian Assange at the World’s Most Dangerous Website’ to support his cover story and spread the myth to conceal his relationship with the F.B.I. I believe it is possible that part of the reason for the book deal, apart from to peddle disinformation to discredit WikiLeaks, was also to cover financial payments to Domscheit-Berg, for his assistance to the U.S. Government. After the split with WikiLeaks,

Domscheit-Berg attempted to use a Chaos Computer Club summer event to promote ‘Openleaks’. The response of Andy Muller-Maguhn was as follows:- “We on the board of the CCC are not happy Domscheit-Berg has given the impression Openleaks will be tested by our own people and thus given a CCC stamp of approval. This is outrageous.”

Andy Müller-Maguhn – Former Board-Member of the Chaos Computer Club

Domscheit-Berg also refused to divulge information about ‘Openleaks’ or with whom he was working. I believe that the motivation for this promotion of ‘Openleaks’, at this event, was to assist the F.B.I. and other U.S. Government agencies, in using it as a ‘honey-trap’. I believe they wanted to encourage genuine Sources to use that facility instead of ‘WikiLeaks’ to stop information being leaked to the public and to identify Sources so they could then be prosecuted. I believe that, due to the honesty and intelligence of members of the Chaos Computer Club, this plan back-fired and the operation was an ‘epic fail’, causing it to be shelved. As we know, Andy Muller-Maguhn went on to co-author the ground-breaking ‘Cypherpunks’ with Julian Assange. Clearly he was too smart to fall for Domscheit-Berg’s antics. I believe that Domscheit-Berg would also have been reporting back to the F.B.I. about the members and activities of the Chaos Computer Club and their associates and may still be doing so.

The high-level, immediate, Main-stream Media support of Domscheit-Berg, also appears to have been assisted by the U.S. Government. Domscheit-Berg, being a narcissistic egotist, would no doubt have easily fallen in line with anyone who said to him, “Boy, we’re going to make you a star”. In fact, apart from larceny and lying, self-promotion appears to have been his only activity since being fired from WikiLeaks.

My investigation has been wholly based on information obtained from the internet. The conclusion that Domscheit-Berg was and probably still is, being ‘handled’ by the F.B.I., is the only explanation for the odd sequence of events and the numerous inconsistencies, both in his words and actions. All of these inconsistencies fall into place when the conclusion is applied. It is the only way to make sense of the whole matter.

This view is supported by those expressed by Julian Assange, in his statement of 20th August, 2011.

“I have received a warning from a current Western intelligence officer that Daniel Domscheit-Berg has been in contact with the F.B.I., on more than one occasion, and that the information from his contact was “helpful”. I do not know if Daniel Domscheit-Berg was complicit with the reported contact.David House, of the Bradley Manning Support Network, stated publicly, and repeatedly, that U.S. investigative authorities attempted to bribe him to become an informant and infiltrate WikiLeaks activities.”

Julian Assange– Believed Domscheit-Berg was in contact with the F.B.I.

Needless to say, whether Daniel Domscheit-Berg is a vengeful competitor, an F.B.I. snitch, or both, one thing is clear – anyone who decides to trust him has rocks in their head.

The rush is currently on to produce films about WikiLeaks and Julian Assange. Dreamworks have one in pre-production with the working title of ‘The Man who Sold the World’. Cast members of the film, which is to be directed by Bill Condon (Twilight), include British actor Benedict Cumberbatch, star of the BBC’s ‘Sherlock’ mini-series, who is to play the role of WikiLeaks’ Publisher and Editor-in-Chief, Julian Assange.

The film reportedly draws on two sources: ‘WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange’s War On Secrecy’ by journalists David Leigh and Luke Harding and ‘Inside WikiLeaks: My Time With Julian Assange at the World’s Most Dangerous Website’, by Daniel Domscheit-Berg.

Daniel Domscheit-Berg– Had trouble keeping his stories straight

As a result of his on-going work with WikiLeaks, Assange is currently a prisoner in the Ecuadorean Embassy under threat of extradition to the United States. He was forced to take refuge there as a result of a European Arrest Warrant pertaining to politically motivated sexual ‘molestation’ allegations. The warrant was taken out by Sweden, whose part in this corrupt, legal-moral fiasco, has allowed the U.S. to turn their country into a standing joke.

It is a matter of public record that Domscheit-Berg, a previous WikiLeaks spokesperson in Germany, was ejected from WikiLeaks after causing internal dissension. He used claims about WikiLeaks documents and other internal WikiLeaks communications, to hold WikiLeaks and Assange to ransom.

I was going to suggest that Domscheit-Berg might be a Salieri to Assange’s Mozart but even Salieri produced some works. Domscheit-Berg’s contribution to the international record, post-WikiLeaks, has been to sit on the side-lines and try to hoover up some reflected glory whilst smearing a person who, despite his situation, continues to change lives.

And he is changing lives. He should be given a medal for ‘Services to the American public’ for releasing the ‘Collateral Murder’ video alone. Americans needed to see that. I, as a citizen of a country who has a military alliance with the United States, needed to see that.

Domscheit-Berg’s achievements, however, are somewhat less illustrious:

Before leaving WikiLeaks, he stole 3,500 unpublished files, leaked to WikiLeaks by sources, including the complete U.S. no-fly list, five gigabytes of Bank of America documents and detailed information about twenty neo-Nazi groups. Along with these files, Domscheit-Berg also stole the entire WikiLeaks encrypted submission system to use in his rival site ‘Openleaks’. The bitchy reason he provided for stealing the files and submission system was that “children shouldn’t play with guns”. This theft resulted in WikiLeaks being unable to receive on-line leaked document submissions for a year, with the site instead being forced to resort to using a Post Office Box in Australia.

WikiLeaks were forced to waste many months trying to negotiate the return of the stolen unpublished leaks and internal communications. Domscheit-Berg then tried to blackmail WikiLeaks by threatening to make available, to forces that oppose WikiLeaks, these communications, should WikiLeaks move to charge him with sabotage or theft. Attempts were made, to negotiate the return of the items, but were terminated by a mediator who had “doubts” about Domscheit-Berg’s “integrity”.

Domscheit-Berg then threatened to destroy the files. In a ‘Der Spiegel’ interview, Domscheit-Berg said he had the files “shredded to ensure that the sources are not compromised”. He then later lied to ‘Der Freitag’, ‘’I took no documents from WikiLeaks with me’. It would appear that Domscheit-Berg is not only an immature and vengeful character, but he has trouble keeping his stories straight.

Domscheit-Berg’s actions would be considered criminal offences in most countries. The encryption system would most likely also be classed as the “intellectual property” of WikiLeaks. It appears WikiLeaks would be entitled to sue Domscheit-Berg for its theft as well as claim for financial damages. How much did he get paid for that book deal?

WikiLeaks clearly made the right decision in kicking this guy to the kerb. A person with such a demonstrated lack of moral integrity and maturity has no place in an organisation where the stakes, for the whistle-blowers, WikiLeaks members and the general public, are so high.

Regardless of who was at fault, in the relationship between Domscheit-Berg and Assange, the only conceivable explanation for Domscheit-Berg’s actions is revenge. Given Domscheit-Berg’s own acknowledgement of the importance of WikiLeaks’ task and the information involved, these are clearly the actions of a self-serving narcissist. These acts more accurately demonstrate the personal failings of a film’s petty, twisted villain, rather than a hero. It’s going to take a lot of poetic license for any film-maker to frame those facts in any other way.

It appears that Daniel Domscheit-Berg’s only contribution to international government transparency and press freedom, since his departure from WikiLeaks, has been to go trolling around Twitter making silly, unsubstantiated accusations about Assange and WikiLeaks supporters reputedly linking to a “neo-Nazi” site. Supporters, including myself, were ominously informed that the request had come from “Berlin”. He must be of the belief that Berlin is still the seat of authority it was in 1940. When challenged, the allegations were down-graded to an unsubstantiated claim that the site had displayed ‘neo-Nazi attitudes’.

I believe these harassing Tweets emanated from that ‘Star of stage and screen’, Domscheit-Berg, himself. They were sent from a pseudonymous account, “Wikinews”. This account displays a drawing on the profile page with an arrow pointing to Domscheit-Berg’s name. This account responds directly to questions Tweeted by followers to Domscheit-Berg’s @Openleaks account.

It appears that the allegations were in response to Assange supporters, including myself, re-tweeting links to Swedish News organisation, Rixstep News. The ‘neo-Nazi’ allegations appeared immediately after Rixstep published a mirth-making article providing excerpts of Domscheit-Berg’s book, with amusing asides commenting on the ‘shite’ contained therein. Obviously Rixstep had touched a raw nerve.

Whilst our cinematic hero has been engaging in this idiocy, Julian Assange continues his life’s work from a single room, in the Ecuadorian Embassy, whilst under continued intrusive surveillance from police and Intelligence Agencies. Among other activities, he has been using his prodigious intelligence to alert the world to the real and present threats to our global autonomy and personal freedoms as a result of misuse of our information systems. In this area he has taken on the role of educator, producing a book on the subject, ‘Cypherpunks – Freedom and the Future of the Internet’. The information he provides, both through the written and spoken word, is considered threatening to those who would usurp our power, including the United States and his activities have brought him under increasing pressure from politicians and the government and corporate-controlled Main Stream Media. In short, he continues to make genuine sacrifices for a cause greater than himself.

His situation is one which would send most people, including myself, howling to the nut-house. But Assange appears to be holding up well, continuing to network and communicate with an ever-growing group of sympathetic individuals, including prominent public figures, in the international community.

I have been keeping an eye on the ‘Openleaks’ website and Twitter account for signs of life – waiting for evidence of the amazing leaks of information which will show the world that Domscheit-Berg is the wronged hero he’s selling himself as. It’s been well over a year since ‘Openleaks’ opened for business but still nothing…

But then who, in their right mind, would risk their life or future to leak information to a man who has completely and publically sold-out WikiLeaks and Julian Assange – who has confessed to stealing documents from WikiLeaks and destroying them.

Any attempts by Dreamworks to make Domscheit-Berg into the hero of their film are going to fall flat. There’s just too much information out there and too many high-profile supporters who know the real story.

You don’t have to be a genius media commentator to know that even members of the public who don’t like Julian Asssange for whatever reason, recognise Domscheit-Berg as a jealous, cowering character, who has had little to do with the massively influential focal point for freedom-fighters, which WikiLeaks has become.

This is a man who did not only sell out WikiLeaks and Julian, he sold out all of us, every one of us who believe that Democracy and Freedom of Speech are in trouble. And, as any thinking person knows, the threat to Democracy, led by the United States Government and its Intelligence services, is palpable, real and upon us.

For all we know, the proposed title, ‘The man who sold the world’, may end up correctly referring to Domscheit-Berg. One can only hope that the film-makers have the intelligence and perspective not to waste an opportunity to chronicle an important international development, by producing a B-grade, smearing, fluff-piece.

Maybe Steven Spielberg isn’t that silly after all – to pillory himself with a film that will be looked back on as so completely backing the wrong horse. I mean, would you want history to refer to you as the guy who made a film backing the Ku Klux Klan against Martin Luther King, or the South African Government against Nelson Mandela? Does he really want to take that risk?

I have no doubt that, regardless of what happens with the U.S. sealed Espionage indictments and/or the Swedish fiasco, the international influence of Julian Assange will continue to grow and become an even more important part of the historical record.

At the end of the day, WikiLeaks was always Assange’s organisation. Domscheit-Berg was a bit player who had neither the talent nor drive to achieve what Assange has with the organisation. His own jealousy and failure to recognise this and get behind Assange, proved his undoing.

Julian Assange and his organisation, WikiLeaks, have never released the identity of a WikiLeaks source, indeed have never sold-out anyone. A lesser man in his position might have tried to do a deal of some kind to bargain himself out of the position he is in. Domscheit-Berg, in contrast, stole and apparently destroyed information, provided at great risk, by whistle-blowers and tried to destroy WikiLeaks for reasons of sheer vengeance. He then sold the story of his treachery, with himself re-framed as the victim and hero, for thirty pieces of silver.

So who is the lesser man of the two? Events, past and present, clearly demonstrate which one of them is the sell-out. Let’s hope the film-makers can figure it out. Meanwhile, I watch the cyber-traffic and wait for Daniel Domscheit-Berg to do something for someone other than himself.

In 2012 there were fifteen mass shootings in the U.S.A., culminating in the most tragic, on December 14, 2012. On this day, the world learned of the tragic murder of twenty-eight people, including teachers and twenty children, at Sandy Hook Elementary School, in Newtown Connecticut. The killer was twenty year old Adam Lanza, who then turned his Bushmaster XM-15 rifle on himself to avoid apprehension.

This incident resulted in an immediate call to panic stations by a large section of the American population. What still seems bizarre, however, is that this mass panic did not appear to relate to fears of further incidents of mass murder and mayhem. The reaction related to fears that that the U.S. Government might finally do something about the free ownership of personal arsenals of automatic and semi-automatic firearms and high-volume magazines by the civilian population.

Firearms and high-capacity magazines have been flying off the shelves, like canned food after a natural disaster. This “panic-buying” indicates that America’s collective ‘Fight or Flight’ mechanism has kicked in. But what are they scared of? Film-maker Michael Moore has opined that American gun owners, who are predominantly white males, really retain their guns to shoot “black” and “poor” people. So much for the original reason for the creation of the cherished Second Amendment. Mind you, these avid consumers of deadly toys will never admit it, particularly with a black President in office.

On December 12, a four year old child, in Houston Texas, was left in a critical condition after accidentally shooting himself in the face with a hand-gun his father had left loaded in a nightstand. I would ask, why did this guy have a loaded gun in his night-stand? Such incidents haven’t prevented long-term N.R.A. toady, attorney Dave Kopel, continuing to argue against safe-storage requirements for firearms. What a guy.

On December 17, three days after the Sandy Hook massacre, a gun-man started shooting in the Mayan theatre, in San Antonio Texas, but was shot and stopped by a female. Gun ownership advocates, including the N.R.A., immediately seized on the report, promoting the incident as evidence that a lone, armed citizen saved the day, dropping the gun-man with one shot. They did this to promote their attempt to avoid gun restrictions by arguing that, instead, schools should have armed guards for protection.

The aspect of the case that they de-emphasised, was the fact that the “citizen” was a trained, experienced, off-duty police officer, who was working as a security guard at the time. In other words, this was not just some random schmuck who discovered the John Wayne who lives inside every one of us and who was luckily armed and ready to prove that every American is a potential hero, ready to save the day from Terminators, Bin Laden, or whatever other evils hide in the American psyche. The police officer involved in the incident was highly trained and experienced and used to high-pressure situations but had still only managed to wound the gun-man despite firing four shots.

N.R.A. supporters demonstrate daily that they are equally willing to prostitute the truth. I was amused recently by a website which promotes natural medicine and related therapies and products. Since the Sandy Hook massacre this site has been pulling out all stops to aggressively promote gun ownership and to attack supporters of new legislative constraints. The site’s owners do not appear to recognise the inconsistency in these two spheres of interest.

The owner of said website recently expressed his indignation about the fact that his facebook account had been temporarily suspended due to a quote posted on it from, get this, Mahatma Gandhi. This quote related to Indian people retaining their guns under British Colonial rule. As if the champion of passive resistance would condone a bunch of selfish white Americans, under no such threat, using the murders of twenty children to hang onto their personal arsenal of lethal toys. As if, for one second, the guy who runs said natural medicine website, would ever protest against anything other than sales tax on his products or someone taking his guns away.

This is one of thousands of examples of manipulative, farcical Tweets on the topic. Film-maker Michael Moore is subjected to a daily torrent of abuse, on social media and elsewhere, as a result of his brave and vocal stance in favour of tighter gun laws, including limiting sales to seven round capacity magazines. He has even gone so far as to Tweet, “I would repeal the Second Amendment”. I could practically hear the howls of pain and horror, from Down-under then read the responses accusing Moore of being a Marxist, chicken-shit etc.

The usual chestnut constantly thrown at him (and me) is along the lines of “cars kill people, why not ban cars”. Well kids, based on data compiled by Bloomberg, by 2015 firearm fatalities will probably exceed traffic fatalities for the first time. And this is despite the vastly greater car ownership numbers. So much for that argument.

My personal favourite, in the Tweet Hall of Shame, was sent a few days ago by a Texan woman. Said Tweet was in response to an ‘Anonymous’ account holder’s Tweet sadly informing Followers that the Indian bus gang-rape victim had died. The Texan woman immediately tweeted “Someone with a gun could have stopped this”, followed by the nurturing comment, “Stay armed…stay safe.” I guess one woman’s tragedy is another woman’s opportunity. If I could have reached through my computer and wrung her neck, I would have. See, violence does beget violence.

This idiocy makes me wonder if America is suffering from a mass, progressive form of mental-illness. One genius, Republican Kyle Kacal, even stated “ping-pongs are more dangerous than guns”. What’s more disturbing is that people elected this creature. What a coincidence – he’s also a Texan. The inescapable conclusion that one must come to is that Americans do not value the lives of American children as much as they value their gun collections. That is a frightening indication of the most extreme form of narcissism, maybe even Sociopathic tendencies.

Strangely the level of indignant anger and fear, held by gun-obsessed Americans, appears to be grossly disproportionate to their reaction to the National Defence Authorization Act 2013, which confirms the government’s rights to indefinitely incarcerate American Citizens. Nor do these same gun-totin’ patriots appear to have much interest in their First Amendment rights. Clearly Indefinite Detention and Freedom of Speech are vague and uninspiring concepts, compared with the definitive pleasure of cold steel in your hands.

An hillarious example of this dicotomy is the current attempt, by 100,000 guardians of the U.S. Constitution, who have signed a petition calling for the deportation of British journalist and CNN host, Piers Morgan. Morgan rightly called Larry Pratt, Executive Director of Gun Owners for America, a ‘dangerous’, ‘unbelievably stupid man’ for advocating more gun ownership to solve America’s mass-murder problem. The White House petition accuses him of undermining ‘the rights of Americans’ and ‘a hostile attack on the U.S. Constitution’.

These people might start showing an interest in the First Amendment if someone starts interfering with their Christian fundamentalist ‘snake dancing’ or church ‘fag-hating’ activities, but until then it’s a case of, “We don’t care about THAT amendment, we like the other one – the one with guns!” Mind you, gun-owners don’t mind exercising their free speech rights in response to Morgan. For example: “All this multiple assault weapon owner has to say is Get your Brit bitch ass out of OUR Country!” That Tweeter was also from Texas – remind me never to go there. I guess the Texan love affair with guns probably goes back to the time when the murder of JFK really put them on the map.

The United States Government takes care to ensure that the public are not made aware of the real effects of gun ownership on the health and longevity of Americans. Since 1996 Congress has forbidden the CDC from funding studies in relation to these issues. The ban now extends to the entire Department of Health and Human Services. (Source: Huffington Post). This isn’t surprising when you consider that American firearm and ammunition manufacturers earned nearly $1 billion in profits last year.

Gun ownership advocates are not above hiding information and statistics to protect their interests and it appears the Wall Street Journal are not above printing said falsified information to protect the big end of town. On December 26, 2012 they carried a story, by Joyce Malcolm, warning readers not to follow the examples of Australia and the U.K. She states, “Strict gun laws in Great Britain and Australia haven’t made their people noticeably safer, nor have they prevented massacres”. Newsflash, Joyce, Australia has not had a mass murder since 1996, when semi-automatic weapons were banned. Further statistics I have sourced from the Australian Institute of Criminology’s (AIC) annual report into crime trends, released on 4 March 2012, indicate that crime rates in Australia have continued to fall across most major categories. Pertinent to the date of Australia’s 1996 law changes, the report indicates that there has been a 27 per cent drop in the number of homicides between 1996 and 2010, with a drop of 11 per cent between 2009 and 2010. The study further confirmed that only 13 percent of these homicides were committed with guns, with 39 percent apparently committed with knives. I would add that, though each death is a tragedy, it’s not easy to kill commit a mass murder with a knife.

Joyce Malcolm further cautions us that, in 2008, there was a twenty percent increase in the number of sexual assaults in Australia. What point is she making there – that if you take a man’s gun away you make him into a rapist? Statistics obtained from the Australian Institute of Criminology also indicate that rates of sexual assaults in Australia have actually been decreasing since 2008, by approximately four percent per year. Not to mention that, in 2010, the number of victims of Robbery was the lowest since 1996, when the gun laws were changed.

Conclusion: There is no evidence that tighter gun laws have resulted in increases in other crimes, regardless of what ‘Double-think’ is applied – as if this could EVER be a logical development. Statistics do, however, suggest that Australia IS a safer place as a result of the changes.

The information presented about Australia was clearly erroneous and misleading or at the very least, outdated and misrepresented. Ms. Malcolm’s other literary works indicate clearly which side she bats for. One could be charitable and say that the article is based on old information, though I believe Ms. Malcolm’s personal agenda has affected her findings. I wonder how, with good conscience, the Wall Street Journal can present an article like this without verifying currency and accuracy .

Cartoon by David Klein

This cartoon, by David Klein, accompanied the Wall Street Journal article. The meaning is pretty definitive. Those places to the left and right aren’t countries at all. They’re just places without guns, unlike the good old gun-totin’ USA, which still deserves a flag.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, the situation is this: The number of bodies, both in America and as a result of drone-bombing, continues to grow. Civilian arsenals also continue to grow, whilst levels of mental health decline.

Michael Moore and others valiantly continue to try to raise awareness of the demons living in the American psyche and to convince Americans that there might be another way to live, a way which doesn’t involve murder and paranoia. Despite what many fear, people like Moore and Morgan are not trying to rob Americans of their ‘man-brand’. They are trying to stop the United Sates from dissolving into civil war in a moral environment where war is a continuous state of normality, where piles of dead bodies are acceptable, even if they are the bodies of children.

They are trying to snap back to moral reality, countrymen who are numb to these frequent wars and deaths and who are possessed of a paranoid, self-centred view-point, fuelled by government after government who reinforce a belief that ‘might is right’, ‘the ends justify the means’ and ‘the goods guys always win’. Any chance that the majority of Americans can break out of this Hollywood-Disney mind-set, is stunted by a patriotic, mindless belief in their institutions of power, as influenced by a partisan media, which protects them, all the while, from a nagging suspicion, like a flea biting just behind the left ear that, ‘maybe this time, we’re not the good guys’.

Many Americans don’t feel the need to own personal arsenals but are unwillingly to speak against the Second Amendment. I would say this to them: You may look at your gun-owning fellow Americans and ask yourself, “Are these people just a bunch of gun-perves and wanna be ‘he –men’, or are they something more sinister”. As the communities of Sandy Hook, Connecticut and Columbine, Colorado, have sadly discovered, you’ll never know until it’s too late.

For the first time, I feel relieved about the size of the Pacific Ocean and the fact that we’re on the opposite side of it. I know there are lots of great and brilliant American people who are fighting for what is right and moral in the world, including gun-control, freedom of speech, the closure of Guantanamo Bay and an end to drone-bombing, but I know they’re pushing it up a hill and I don’t envy them.

The disinterest in the lives of one’s countrymen, women and children, exhibited by the N.R.A. and their supporters, demonstrates the worst excesses of the American “Me” generation, something of which the rest of the Western world are admittedly also guilty. Perhaps we fellow citizens of the West should look at the American journey as a cautionary tale and take action to limit the same developments in our own countries. We’re possessed of the same drives and fears as Americans. John Milius, quoting Lincoln in his script for ‘Apocalyse Now’, a film about the corruption of well-intentioned power, reminds us: “the better angels of our nature do not always prevail”. Maybe, with the continued efforts of good people like Michael Moore, the ‘better angels’ of the American psyche may begin to have a fighting chance. In the mean-time maybe the Pacific Ocean really isn’t big enough.

There has been much to-ing and fro-ing in the Mainstream and Social Media in the months since Julian Assange’s unsuccessful defence against Swedish extradition, in relation to the allegations of sexual ‘molestation’ and the subsequent granting of political asylum by Ecuadore.

It has been over six months since the fateful decision by the British courts, a decision which must have elicited whoops and chuckles from various forms of cubical life in the F.B.I. and other ‘Corridors of Power’ in the U.S. Intelligence community.

Julian Assange– Speech from the balcony of the Ecuadorian Embassy

And we all know the F.B.I. are gagging to get their hands on Julian Assange. You don’t have a 42,000 page case file and ‘sealed indictments’ in relation to someone you’re not interested in, despite what Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Bob Carr, has been wheeled out and told to say.

So where are the alleged victims of the sexual molestation allegations? It is highly improbable that both women could simply have dropped off the face of the earth, without the assistance of authorities and without a living-soul being able to verify their whereabouts.

I must mention that I use the names of the alleged victims as they are well known because they were promptly leaked by the Swedish Police at the beginning of the Investigation, something which would never have occured in any country with half-decent legal principles.

As Anna Ardin appears to have been the instigator of the whole situation, one can only assume that she is still “on board” with the Swedish Prosecution, though this has not been verified. And what of Sofia Wilen, the woman who is generally believed to have been rail-roaded by the Swedish Prosecutors and Police. Sofia Wilen who commenced back-pedalling even before her initial statement was signed, to the point where she became extremely distressed and refused to sign said statement? Where is she now?

One hypothesis is that she is being kept incommunicado by the F.B.I., or some other faceless U.S. Government entity, in some ‘gilded-cage’-style safe-house, either in Sweden or somewhere else, possibly even the U.S.A. Presumably the F.B.I. would be able to keep a better eye on her there and keep her quiet. She may even be held under some form of legal or physical duress. That duress may consist of some combination of the ‘carrot and the stick’ approach – possibly legal threats combined with offers of financial or legal assistance or even a promise of employment.

While these concerns may appear fanciful, it is worth remembering that American political figures have form for treating women this way to achieve political ends. Remember Monica Lewinski, the White House Intern who had a consensual sexual relationship with President Bill Clinton? Lewinski provided a ghost-written, biographical account of an eight hour interrogation, by Republican Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr and his cronies, during which she was kept prisoner, held incommunicado and cross-examined until she agreed to provide grand jury testimony, against Clinton, in return for immunity in relation to the making of a false statement denying the sexual liaison. Monica Lewinski’s only involvement in the whole political mess was to have consensual sex with a man to whom she was attracted – a man who was being targetted by political adversaries. Sound familiar?

Is the same thing, or part thereof, happening to Sofia Wilen? If it’s not the case, where is she? Has she been threatened, in the nicest possible way, with charges in relation to the making of a false statement if she speaks out against the Prosecution? Has she been the subject of promises of a rosey future, possibly in the U.S.A.? Is she simply being kept away from the media and anyone else, so that she can’t trumpet her unwillingness to take part in this quasi-legal fiasco and bring the whole thing crashing down?

Sofia Wilen– Felt ‘Rail-roaded’ by Swedish Police

Her complete disappearance is suspicious and telling. If she’s not still being rail-roaded and has not already stated an unwillingness to testify, where is she? Cough her up so that her welfare can be verified. No Assange supporter wants to harass her. In fact, I believe that she would receive universal support if she stated publicly what we already believe, that she wanted no part in this soap opera.

Show us that she is still a willing participant in this.

This is how events will probably pan out:

The two women will be kept under wraps until Assange is safely in custody in Sweden. Until that time neither of them will be seen, except possibly from a distance. This will particularly be the case with Sofia Wilen, who would almost certainly, particularly if offered the proper support, attest to the fact that she wants nothing to do with the Swedish Prosecution and affirm the fact that she was ‘rail-roaded’ into taking part in the investigation from the start. Her testimony, or the lack thereof, along with the paucity and lack of credibility of other ‘evidence’ will no doubt result in the collapse of any subsequent charges.

That is, of course, if any charges are even laid. Obviously the Swedish Police know they’ve got no case or this would already have occurred. No matter to the F.B.I. either way. For they will be in the happy position of being able to organise Assange’s extradition directly from Sweden, at their convenience. They will have this luxury regardless of whether or not charges are laid. Once Assange is safely in custody in Sweden, they don’t have to give a crap what Sofia Wilen says. She can shout from the roof-tops that she was a legal pawn who was dragged into this mess against her will and it won’t matter because the real aim will have been accomplished.

No doubt both Ardin and Wilen have been told by Claes Borgstrom, their legal representative, not to say anything. An incidental issue which needs to be raised and a question which I haven’t heard asked previously is “Why would a witness reporting a crime to police need to immediately lawyer-up, anyway?” The speed at which this occurred has to be a record for two alleged assault victims. This is normally the behaviour of white-collar, corporate crime “witnesses” in need of early arse-covering strategies. I guess this political band-wagon was too tasty for Borgstrom to let pass by. No doubt this was discussed, early in the piece, by Borgstrom and his old friend, Prosecutor Marianne Ny, when they first commenced hatching their plans to use the investigation as a career-enhancement strategy.

Claes Borgstrom – Politically Motivated

At the end of the day, one of the people who is in a position to verbally expose this cynical legal joke is Sofia Wilen. No doubt she has been manipulated by the Swedish Prosecutors and Claes Borgstrom to believe that they represent her interests. Clearly this is not the case or the Swedish Prosecution would have got their butts on a plane to London to interview Assange, to expedite the investigation, regardless of who they say is to blame for the delay. How long’s the plane trip – an hour and a half with a head-wind?

Prove to the world that Sofia Wilen is not under duress. Allow her to have a voice. And if she wants to say, “I don’t want a bar of this”, then that’s her right, too and the Swedish Prosecution have no legal right to do a damn thing to stop her.